"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
On 6 Apr, 02:29, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
| On 5 Apr, 18:36, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
|
|
...
| | On 5 Apr, 16:57, "adman" wrote:
| | "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
| |
| |
...
| | On 5 Apr, 15:07, "adman" wrote:
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an
impressive
| career.
| | Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking
to
form
| | itself after a big bang explosion.
| |
| | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
| |
| | The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show
that
the
| | probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is
in 10
| to
| | the10.123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to
describe
| this
| | possibility.
| |
| | Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close
friend
of
| | Stephen
| | Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the
| | probability. Including what he considered to be all variables
required
| for
| | human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he
computed
| the
| | probability of this environment occurring among all the possible
| results
| | of
| | the Big Bang.
| |
| | According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were
on
the
| | order
| | of 1010123 to 1.
| | It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the
value
| | 10123
| | means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than
the
| total
| | number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.)
But
| | Penrose's
| | answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123
| zeros.
| |
| | Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that
that
| has
| | 1
| | followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a
million;
| if
| | nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not
even a
| name
| | for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
| |
| | In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050
means
| "zero
| | probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion
trillion
| | times
| | less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the
| 'accidental"
| | or
| | "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
| |
| | Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
| | This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been,
namely to
| an
| | accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary
figure.
One
| | could
| | not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary
denary
| | notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even
if
we
| were
| | to
| | write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron
in
the
| | entire
| | universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good
| measure-
| | we
| | should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
| |
| | http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html
| |
| | Having looked again there is a massive error in the article you
cited.
| |
| | It uses positive values for the power by which ten is raised
rather
| | than negative values.
| |
| | Conclusion the article is grossly flawed, and not worth citing for
any
| | reason, other than to show it to be false.
| |
| | Sorry about having to tell you that.
| |
| | [chuckle]
| |
| | Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
| career.
| | Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to
form
| | itself after a big bang explosion.
| |
| | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
| |
| | I'll let him know YOU are correct and HE is wrong as soon as YOUR
name
| is in
| | wikipedia!
| |
| | I stand corrected on one thing only.
| |
| | Roger Penrose isn't the one who got this wrong.
| |
| | It was Harun Yahya, the well known anti evolutionist, and funnily
| | enough Harun Yahya is his nome de plume, for some strange reason
none
| | of his works are ever written under his real name.
| |
| | I Googled - "Roger Penrose" and "This number tells us how precise
the
| | Creator's aim must have been."
| |
| | Guess what, the only sources I can find all point to Harun Yahya's
| | works, or websites that refer to his works.
| |
| | Nowhere on Google do I find any other source linking Roger Penrose
| | with this quotation.
|
| References:* Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael
Denton,
| Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9
|
| |
| | Therefore I am forced to conclude that my original surmise that the
| | article is flawed is still correct.
| |
| | And might I respectfully point out that any event with a non-zero
| | probability is not an impossibility.
| |
| | That is the fact that opponents of the Big Bang and Evolution are
| | unable to accept.
| |
| | .- Hide quoted text -
| |
| | - Show quoted text -
| |
|
| Lets consider some information here.
|
| Harun Yahya claims that an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to
| the power of 50 is a "zero probability" event.
|
| This is not true, as it is a distortion of Emil Borel's statement that
| an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to the power of MINUS 50 is
| an event of negligible probability.
|
| Emil Borel never set this probability value as being the same as "zero
| probability".
|
| Harun Yahya claims that Roger Penrose in his book "The Emperor's New
| Mind" has calculated the probability against the universe forming as 1
| times ten to the power of 10 to the power of 123.
|
| Roger Penrose said nothing of the sort.
That is exactly what Penrose wrote. 1x 10- to the power of 123
|
| I did some more digging and found this section of Roger Penrose's book
| online:
|
|http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
|
| If you read this you will not see the word "probability" written down
| anywhere, nor will you see the words "zero probability" either.
He said: ""extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility."
|
| So your precious source has twisted the works of both Emil Borel and
| Roger Penrose.
Incorrect. Here is another.
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006...eginnings.html
|
| Therefore I stand by my statement that the article you cited is
| flawed.
Incorrect.
From your link:
V/W = 10^10^123.
This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to
an
accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.
This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the
number
down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be `1' followed by
10^123
successive `0 's! Even if we were to write a `0' on each separate proton
and
on each
separate neutron in the entire universe-and we could throw in all the
other
particles
as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the
figure
needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to
be
in no
way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already
become
accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's,
Einstein's)
which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.
But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch
(or
the
singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It
would
appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the
WEYL
part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we
appear
to find
is that there is a constraint
Nuff said.
Read the article again, and look for the words "zero probability", or
even the word "probability" or even the word "impossibility".
You wont find them.
Regarding Emil Borel's work and how Harun Yahya deliberately misuses
it, take a look he
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
"Borel asserts that 10-50 represents a negligible event on the cosmic
scale as it is well below one over the product of the number of
observable stars (109) times the number of observations that humans
could make on those stars (1020)."
The component "10-50" reads as 10 to the power of MINUS 50.
Does Borel say that an event with a probability value that small is
impossible?
No he says that it is a "negligible event", which is not the same.
Therefore my assertion that Harun Yahya's article is flawed still
stands, and your assertion that it isn't remains unproven.
Incorrect. The man obviously poked a hole in big bang. Why deny it?
He said: ""extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility."
Here is another link with the same quote.
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006...eginnings.html
Stubbornness is a good thing. Up to a point. After that point it is simply
denial